Day 12 of 20 · AI for Teachers
IEPs & SEN Documentation
⏱ 5 min
📊 Beginner
Writing Individual Education Plans and SEN documentation is some of the most important work a teacher does. It's also some of the most time-pressured. You're trying to craft thoughtful, specific plans for students with complex needs — often in the margins of an already-packed day, sometimes the evening before a review meeting.
The result? IEPs that get copied from term to term with minimal changes. Targets that are vague because there wasn't time to make them specific. Documentation that fulfils the administrative requirement but doesn't genuinely serve the student.
AI can help you produce better documentation in less time. Not by replacing your professional knowledge — nobody knows these students like you do — but by helping you structure, articulate, and refine the plans you already have in your head.
A critical note before we begin: SEN documentation involves sensitive personal information. Never include a student's real full name or identifying details when using AI tools. Use first names only or pseudonyms. And always review outputs with your SENCO or SEN lead before finalising.
Generating SMART targets
The hardest part of writing an IEP is often the targets. They need to be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound — and when you're writing your fifteenth IEP this term, the targets start to blur together.
AI is excellent at turning your general knowledge of a student's needs into properly structured SMART targets.
The prompt pattern:
"I need to write SMART targets for a student's IEP. Here is the context:
Area of need: [e.g., literacy — reading comprehension]
Current level: [e.g., reading age 2 years below chronological age, struggles to infer meaning from texts]
What I want them to achieve: [e.g., be able to identify and explain implicit information in age-appropriate texts]
Timeframe: [e.g., one term — 12 weeks]
Support available: [e.g., 2x weekly small group intervention, TA support in English lessons]
Generate 3 SMART targets with suggested strategies and success criteria for each."
The output gives you a starting point — targets you can refine based on what you know about the student, discuss with parents, and review with your SENCO. You're not starting from a blank page. You're editing a solid draft.
Knowledge Check
What makes SMART targets particularly difficult to write at scale?
A
Each student needs individualised, specific targets — and the mental effort of crafting precise, measurable goals for many students is exhausting when done back-to-back
B
Only SENCOs should write SMART targets
C
SMART targets are always the same for every student
D
SMART targets don't actually need to be specific
Writing one set of SMART targets is manageable. Writing fifteen in a week, each genuinely tailored to a different student with different needs, is where quality drops. AI handles the structuring — turning your notes about a student into properly formatted, specific targets — so your energy goes into the professional judgement, not the administrative formatting.
Strategies and provision mapping
Beyond targets, IEPs need to describe the strategies and provisions that will support the student. This is where teachers often get stuck — not because they don't know what works, but because articulating it clearly and specifically in writing takes time.
AI can help:
"For a student with [area of need], suggest 5 classroom strategies that a class teacher can implement without additional resources. Be specific — not 'provide support' but exactly what the support looks like in practice."
"The student has the following provisions: [list]. Write a clear description of each provision for the IEP document, including frequency, duration, who delivers it, and what it aims to achieve."
"Suggest reasonable adjustments for a student with [specific need] in [subject]. Include seating arrangements, task modification, assessment access arrangements, and communication strategies."
The goal is documentation that anyone picking up this IEP — a supply teacher, a new TA, a specialist visiting the school — can read and immediately understand what this student needs and how to support them.
EHCP contributions and annual review documentation
If you've ever contributed to an Education, Health and Care Plan annual review, you know the pressure. Your written contribution needs to be detailed, evidence-based, and clearly structured. It feeds into a legal document that determines a student's provision and funding.
AI can help you structure your contribution:
"I need to write a teacher contribution for an EHCP annual review. Here is my input:
Student context: [brief description — age, year group, primary area of need]
Progress this year: [what they've achieved, how they've developed]
Ongoing challenges: [what remains difficult]
What's working: [strategies and provisions that are effective]
What needs to change: [provisions that aren't working or need adjustment]
My recommendation: [what I think should happen next]
Write this as a structured, professional contribution of 300-400 words. Use factual, evidence-based language. Avoid jargon where possible."
Again — AI structures and articulates. You provide the knowledge, the observations, and the professional judgement. The combination produces documentation that's both high-quality and realistic to produce within the time you actually have.
Knowledge Check
When using AI for SEN documentation, what is the most important safeguard?
A
Never include the student's full name or identifying details in AI prompts, and always review outputs with your SENCO before finalising
B
Use the most expensive AI tool available
C
Let AI write the entire document without review
D
Only use AI for students with mild needs
SEN documentation involves sensitive personal information protected by data privacy laws. Use first names only or pseudonyms in AI prompts. And because these documents have significant implications for students and families, always review AI-generated drafts with your SENCO or SEN lead before they become official records.
I need to draft IEP targets for a student. Here's the context:
First name: Kai
Year group: Year 7
Area of need: Social communication — Kai finds it difficult to work in groups, struggles to take turns in conversation, and often misreads social cues from peers. He can become anxious in unstructured social situations like break times.
Current support: TA support in core subjects, social skills group on Wednesdays
What I'd like to see: Kai participating in paired work confidently, initiating conversation with peers, and managing unstructured time without significant anxiety
Timeframe: This academic year (3 terms)
Generate 3 SMART targets — one per term — with strategies and success criteria for each. These should build on each other progressively.
**IEP Targets — Kai, Year 7**
*Area of Need: Social Communication*
---
**Target 1 — Term 1 (Autumn): Structured Paired Work**
By the end of Term 1, Kai will participate in paired work activities with a familiar peer for at least 10 minutes, taking turns to speak and listen, in 4 out of 5 observed opportunities.
Strategies:
- Pre-teach paired work expectations using a visual prompt card (speak, listen, respond)
- Pair Kai with a consistent, supportive peer for the first half term, then gradually introduce different partners
- TA to facilitate the first 2 minutes of paired work, then step back and observe
- Use a structured talk framework (sentence starters on the desk) to reduce the anxiety of open-ended conversation
- Debrief with Kai after paired activities — what went well, what felt difficult
Success criteria: Kai engages in paired work for the full allocated time, makes at least 2 verbal contributions per activity, and reports reduced anxiety on a simple 1-5 scale.
---
**Target 2 — Term 2 (Spring): Initiating Social Interaction**
By the end of Term 2, Kai will independently initiate a conversation with a peer at least once per day during structured activities (lessons, clubs), using a taught conversation opener.
Strategies:
- Social skills group to teach and practise 3-4 conversation openers (e.g., "What did you think of...?", "Did you see...?", "Can I join...?")
- Kai to keep a simple tally card to self-monitor how many times he initiates conversation each day
- Class teachers to create natural opportunities for initiation (e.g., "Ask your partner what they think")
- Weekly check-in with a trusted adult to review the tally card and celebrate progress
- Praise and reinforce initiation when it occurs naturally — specific praise, not general ("I noticed you asked Ravi about his weekend — that was a great conversation starter")
Success criteria: Kai initiates conversation with a peer at least once per day across a school week, recorded on his tally card, for 4 consecutive weeks.
---
**Target 3 — Term 3 (Summer): Managing Unstructured Time**
By the end of Term 3, Kai will spend at least 3 out of 5 break or lunch times engaging in a social activity (conversation, game, or club) with at least one peer, with minimal adult support.
Strategies:
- Identify 2-3 structured lunchtime options Kai can access (clubs, library group, supervised games)
- Gradually reduce TA presence during break times — from accompanying Kai to checking in from a distance to Kai self-managing
- Create a "break time plan" with Kai: a visual choice board of options for unstructured time
- Peer buddy system — identify 2 willing peers who can naturally include Kai
- Teach Kai a simple anxiety management technique (e.g., 5-4-3-2-1 grounding) for moments of social overwhelm
Success criteria: Kai engages in social activity during break or lunch for 3 out of 5 days per week, self-reported anxiety remains at 3 or below on the 1-5 scale, and adult intervention during break times reduces to check-in only.
↻ Replay conversation
Sensitive, structured, and realistic to implement
Those targets are progressive — each builds on the last. They include specific, observable success criteria. The strategies are practical and don't require resources the school doesn't have. And they read as professionally written documentation that any SENCO would be happy to review.
Would you adjust things? Probably. You know Kai. You know which peers would be good buddies. You know whether the TA has the capacity for the check-ins described. That's exactly the point — AI gives you a strong framework, and you refine it with the knowledge that only comes from knowing the child.
The time saved is significant. Drafting three progressive SMART targets with strategies and success criteria from scratch takes 30-45 minutes per student. With AI, you spend 2-3 minutes writing your input notes, 30 seconds for generation, and 5-10 minutes reviewing and adjusting. For a caseload of 10 students, that's hours saved.
Knowledge Check
What is the ideal relationship between AI output and teacher input in SEN documentation?
A
AI is only useful for the administrative parts, not the targets
B
AI should write everything and the teacher just signs it
C
Teachers should never use AI for SEN documentation
D
AI structures and articulates the documentation; the teacher provides the knowledge, observations, and professional judgement that makes it meaningful
AI is a structuring tool, not a decision-making tool. You know the student. You know what works in your classroom. You know the family context. AI takes your professional knowledge and turns it into well-structured, clearly articulated documentation — saving you the time of writing and formatting while preserving the substance that only you can provide.
Your expertise in, structured documentation out — always reviewed before it's finalised.
Final Check
Why is it important to use pseudonyms or first names only when using AI for SEN documentation?
A
Schools require all AI use to be anonymous
B
It makes the prompts easier to write
C
SEN documentation contains sensitive personal information that should not be shared with external AI services, in line with data protection responsibilities
D
AI works better with shorter names
Data protection is a legal and ethical responsibility. SEN documentation includes sensitive personal information about children's needs, diagnoses, and circumstances. Using first names only or pseudonyms protects the student's privacy while still allowing AI to help you structure effective documentation.
📚
Day 12 Complete
"IEPs don't have to be written in the margins of your day. Give AI the context, get structured targets and strategies back, and spend your time on what matters — the professional judgement that only you can provide."
Tomorrow — Day 13
Student Self-Assessment & Peer Feedback
Tomorrow you'll create self-assessment tools and peer feedback frameworks that build student independence.